ynab_update_transactions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: batch size limit (1–100), dry-run mode, return summary. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, consistent with updating. No contradictions. The description effectively communicates key behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, and uses structured bullet points for arguments and examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Short, clear, and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (array parameter with multiple subfields) and presence of output schema (not shown), the description covers core constraints (batch size, dry-run, return summary). It adequately informs an agent about how to use the tool, though it could mention that only provided fields are updated (idempotent behavior).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains budget_id (optional), transactions (required, up to 100 objects with required id and optional fields), and dry_run (optional, default false). However, individual subfields like amount, date, payee_name are not described; the schema provides types and enums but not semantics. Some explanation is present, but incomplete for all parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Update 1–100 transactions in a single batch with dry-run preview.' It specifies the verb (Update), resource (transactions), batch size limit, and preview capability, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ynab_create_transactions (create) and ynab_update_transaction (single transaction update).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: for batch updates of existing transactions with optional dry-run preview. However, no explicit alternatives are mentioned (e.g., when to use ynab_update_transaction for single updates). The example provides a specific use case but lacks when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.